Why not?

Does God Exist?

Tue, 22 Sep 2009 03:47:24 GMT

I got an "friend request" on Facebook from a "publisher of Christian speculative fiction". Is there a novel about what would happen if the Religious Right figured out that Science can neither confirm nor deny the existence of God? Probably not. An understanding of, and belief in, evolution dosen't make you an athiest? HAH! This is POPULAR fiction, so its probably all about how Jesus will smite Queers, Liberals, and Librarians (loan OUR kids Harry Potter books, will you?!? TAKE THAT!).

From an exhaustive analysis of the Left Behind series (i.e. I read the dustjacket), I conclude that the only country God loves enough to inflict Armageddon upon is the United States (and Israel. But thats okay because Jews are just unconverted Christians). Sorry, Canada, you arent righteous enough to endure seven years of darkness. The only question is whether the seas of sulfur stop at the shoreline, or if they extend to the edge of the Continental Shelf.

No, Im not interested in reading cultural domination fantasies concocted by morally certain assholes (God may not have seen fit to reveal His mind to Me, but Im CERTAIN that God hates the ACLU!). I take offense to people who take their faith and beat it like a rented mule, until the shape fits THEIR head, and then accuse those who disagree with them of apostasy.

Screw that! If you believe in God out of a fear of Hellfire, you really need to sit down and and ask yourself why religious teachers would rather enforce obedience rather than nurture free will. Because [dis]belief in God is the ultimate act of free will.

Sick of flying

Tue, 19 May 2009 02:52:15 GMT

NEVER AGAIN! Putting a 3 year old on an airplane is about the dumbest thing you can do: It REALLY EXCITING to fly on an airplane, coupled with the reality that airline travel is: waiting in line to check in at counter, waiting in line to go through security (but security can be fun!), sitting around waiting to get on the airplane (beware! looking out at the airplanes taking off and landing gets old after about 5 minutes), then GETTING ON THE AIRPLANE! LOOKING OUT THE WINDOW! Waiting for the plane to fill up, waiting on the tarmac to take off (fifteen minutes of waiting is an eternity with small children), and then WERE TAKING OFF!!!!! followed by an hour or so of sitting in our chairs, staring out the window being bored, and waiting to land, then LANDING!!! Which isnt as exciting for some reason *unless theres turbulence*. then on the ground you get to trot to the next plane to repeat the exercise.

In short, its VERY EXCITING! So sit still, dammit! Stop kicking the seat in front of you! Want a cookie? Heres some toys! Oh, thats not keeping you occupied?

So, for the second time in as many weeks, the kid and I found ourselves. in Fayetteville, NC.

This time, the airline lost the kid's car seat somewhere in Charlotte. And I forgot my keys in fayetteville.

Update from Old Post

Sun, 05 Apr 2009 02:35:50 GMT

In short: fuck the economy.

Deep Thought

Mon, 02 Feb 2009 03:08:57 GMT

It would be easier to take your thoughts seriously if you exhibited more than a rudimentary command of grammar and spelling.

Good news and bad news ...

Thu, 01 Jan 2009 08:12:32 GMT

... About Your Virginity Pledge:

1) Tend to have sex later than your peers

BUT

2) More likely to have unprotected sex
3) More likely to get an STD.

SO:

At the end of the day (puberty), your just as likely to have sex before marriage, but with no condoms and no clue.

Yay abstinence ed!

<Others think the point of Abstinence Ed is to make sure Bad Girls get punished for their promiscuity>

Mon, 20 Oct 2008 02:55:00 GMT

I officially concede: Buying newly issued preferred shares in failing banks is dumb. Its not as dumb as buying mortgage-backed securities at face value, though (Im looking at you, Mr McCain). In fact, its probably smarter than NOT buying preferred shares (bidding on shares already listed does nothing for the balance sheet of the banks we are trying to save from themselves). We, as a society, may at least stand a chance of seeing some of our money in the next decade or so this way. Common stockholders will likely demand that the banks, upon a return to (semi)profitability, start buying back said preferred shares. We, as taxpayers, should demand full market value for our semi-nationalized enterprises.

Paying back low interest loans, contrarily, will likely come in at the bottom of the queue come debt-refinancing time. Especially if its an open ended loan (like the $25 billion us taxpayers are loaning GM and Ford).

The flip-side to this problem is that we, as taxpayers, are invested in the resurgence of the banking sector, regardless of the objective need for it to shrink to a more reasonable hunk of the economic pie. And it does not factor in the anticipated costs (to banks) of defaulting credit cards -- if, as expected, defaults rise among those who carry lots of debt and cant make lots of money in our newly recessionized economy.

Not to mention the inflation that our loose monetary and fiscal policy may engender when the current situation settles down (im going for mid-2009) and we come out of recession (im thinking some modest growth will start to show about this time next year). Can you say "double dip"? After all, the inflation of the late 1970s was only brought under control by conscious application of (historically) high interest rates. One consequence was recession.

Whoever the treasury secretary and chairman of the Fed are going to be, the next couple of years are going to be about avoiding economic disaster.

One fringe benefit? Alan Greenspan once said that it was not possible to talk down bubbles because it wasnt clear that they had existed until after the fact (this was in 2002, i think). I think its fairly clear at this point that this was a self-justifying line of bullshit to excuse himself from not noticing the Tech Bubble.

On that note, anyone want to predict the next bubble? My money is on "green technology" (not really, but you know what I mean).

Looking a bit further into the future, the Democrats are going to get hammered in the 2010 midterm election if, as I forecast, the economy is still very weak (it takes some time after a recession before businesses start hiring again in earnest); but hopefully, with good short-term economic management (i.e. being aware of the inflationary threat), the president (whoever it shall be) will have a relatively easy time getting re-elected in 2012 (at least from an economic perspective). Of course, if that's John McCain, regardless of the composition of the Congress during his first term, it means the coattail effect is going to hammer Democrats (again). This is, of course, absent any "black swan" events -- i.e. a terrorist bombing, etc.

One day, soon, I might summon the energy to embed some hyperlinks in this post.

Sat, 11 Oct 2008 00:14:54 GMT

Well, my retirement account is officially worth less than it was on January 1. Even after contributions. All in all, Im okay with this.

You turn around and realize, once again, people are smart; herds are stupid.

Well, most of my contemporaries are well versed in the price increases and speculative excess that marked the Dot-Com Boom. It was a classic speculative bubble -- stock prices rising because everyone believed stock prices would rise, regardless of business model, revenues, profitability, or even basic sense. All it needed was an e- prefix and it shat gold bricks, as far as Wall Street was concerned.

And now, we have the anti-bubble. I wont be surprised to find out there have been a few Wall Street suicides. When you hear radio types (NPR) describe the selling as "indiscriminate", that tells me that people are being stupid because other people are being stupid too. The stupidity has, moreover, gotten exponentally stupider.

Is the world going to end? I doubt it.

PS: Buying crap mortgages at face value is STUPID!!!!! Mr "They taught me all about economics at the Hanoi Hilton"

Understanding The Palin

Thu, 11 Sep 2008 23:49:39 GMT

Why have they spent so much time fawning over the McCain VP choice?

Independent voters have a crush on Palin, no doubt brought on by girlish good looks and mooseburgers. So the Obama strategy is to wait for the days of the infatuation, when Sarah can do no wrong and anyone who says anything bad about her just is hating her because they are jealous of her good looks and fabulous non-felon voting record!

Isnt she beautiful, and fabulous, and just perfect in every way?!?

Whats next: well, shes kind of a twit, but shes still hot! and good in bed!

Frankly its baffling to me, whose standard of judgement usually revolves around "What have they done with their power when they won it?"

By that standard, Sarah Palin comes off as an unremarkable politician who uses the same old political tricks of obfuscation, equivication and distraction to, really, distract from the fact that her agenda is rather small minded and provincial. Sure, shes done some good things, but, like all politicians, shes made some rather shitty trade-offs that reflect the reality that there just isnt enough money to go around.

And you expect to do what about it?

Sun, 07 Sep 2008 23:43:25 GMT

In her first big race, for mayor of Wasilla, Palin was a polarizing figure who introduced issues like abortion and gun control into a mayoral race that had traditionally been contested like a friendly intramural contest.

Mind you, I havent actually bothered to read the article. This is what happens when I stumble across an issue of Time magazine when Ive got the kid in a bookstore.

But whats really missing from the race for city zoning commission are the candidates positions on a Sallie Mae bailout and the state of relations between the United States and Uzbekistan.

Unfamiliar Territory

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 04:39:20 GMT

Back in the bad old days, when Mother Russia invaded another soverign state, the United States funded an insurgency to make life hell for the invading army.

Because its not the Cold War anymore, the Bush Administration seems rather flat-footed in its response to the Russian invasion of Georgia. One of my complaints in the last few years is that, if the solution isnt full-throated military intervention, the Bush administration seems to believe that there isnt a problem (thankfully, reality has kept us out of a full all-out war with Iran and North Korea).

Trouble has been brewing in the Caucuses for at least the last fifteen years; the Georgians and the Russians have been at odds for at least the last year. The South Ossetians (and Abkhazians) have been angling for at least autonomy for a long time, supported pretty blatantly by the Russians. It would be as though we started issuing American passports to people from British Columbia -- the Canadians would be rather miffed when we invaded to stop Canadian "atrocities" against British Columbiers. Considering these recent events, its pretty damn clear that Russia seeks territorial aggrandizement at the expense of Georgia. Are the seperatists in South Ossetia and Abkhazia ready to be Russian? The experience of Chechnya should be weighed when answering this question.

Maybe the point of the exercise is to wrest control of the Josef Stalin Boyhood Home National Monument out of the evil hands of Georgia.

I dont see the Ossetians and the Abkhazaners accepting a solution that includes their reinclusion into Georgia, nor do I see them readily accepting Russian domination. I just see this cooling down to a couple (more) decades of simmering tension between Georgia and Russia that has the potential to flare up into a shooting war at any time. International summits will go out of their way to avoid bringing this issue up; the South Ossetians will have de facto independence supported by Russia (annexation isnt in the cards, at least not right now).

It will be a thorn in the side of Russian and Western relations for a good long time. I just dont see a way for this to end well. And there isnt much NATO or the EU can do to enforce a military or political solution, either. God, what a mess.

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:30:19 GMT

Phil Gramm thinks we are a nation of whiners. This statement has raised the predictable shitstorm (how could he say that!?!!).

The problem with the economy is, honestly, that the rules are written by ... you know, us. So, while we set the track of the thousand ton boulder, we have very little control on where that boulder goes when we set it off. There is very little government (us) can do to change economic conditions right at this moment. A lame duck president is not going to be able to wave his wand and make the credit crisis go away, nor is he going to be able to magic down the price of gasoline. Not before his term ends, anyway.

You can respond to this state of affairs in a number of ways. One of them is complete and total denial.

My parents have a blue ribbon on the back of their car. It reads "Lets pretend its all okay".

Random enquiry

Tue, 24 Jun 2008 03:37:41 GMT

So, what causes pipes to start knocking?

toys

Sat, 24 May 2008 03:04:48 GMT

I want one of these

Much to discuss

Thu, 15 May 2008 02:44:33 GMT

But only 3 minutes, so maybe later.

Why is our political discourse controlled by retards?

Sat, 10 May 2008 16:31:04 GMT

What the ~~fuck~~ ~~hell~~ boom-diddly-doggedy is wrong with these people that the only solution to a pressing and complicated diplomatic and humanitarian situation is another ~~goddamm~~ freakin' INVASION!?!

I guess for some people the invasion of Iraq ended when our soldiers were showered with rose petals by the eternally grateful Iraqi people, who now live in peace and prosperity. Seriously, what the heck is wrong with our political establishment that the only solution to the worlds problems they can come up with is BOMB INVADE PACIFY!

The Democrat Primary

Fri, 25 Apr 2008 15:37:33 GMT

Just a few thoughts:

I dont foresee either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton winning enough delegates to win the nomination outright. A lot of attention has been paid to the superdelegate count -- who will vote for Hillary and whom for Barack ad nauseum. Consequently, there will be much pressure on Hillary to withdraw from the races, largely coming from the political elite (who really want to spend their time talking about something else now). I, personally, dont think it makes a bit of difference whether the primaries, for all intents and purposes, end now or drag through June 3 (Puerto Rico votes 6/1; Nebraska and Montana vote 6/3) -- there will have to be a deal brokered to keep the convention from being a lively and unsure event where the results will be uncertain (as opposed to, say, a tightly scripted lovefest for the candidate, boring as all hell, where the most exciting action will be miles away in the "free speech zones" as has occurred in previous years).

The real problem will be if the Party nominates Hillary with fewer delegates and lower vote counts -- it has the potential to cause a real schism in the party with Obama open to contemplate his own run as an independent. This, of course, has the potential to draw enough votes away from the Democratic nominee for McCain to win (there is historical precident for this -- see the election of 1912).

So, I see a fight to the bitter end, and in the days before the convention, I foresee Hillary bowing out and pledging her delegates to Obama in exchange for the vice presidency.

Should Hillary bag the nomination (a diminishing hope for her at this point) she needs Obama far more politically than Obama needs her; however, he needs her far more than she needs him from the policy perspective. She (and Bill) have far more experience pushing an agenda through Congress than he does; he appeals far more to the party base and to "independents" than she does. Obama has the potential to pull in far more people who would otherwise not bother voting than Hillary does.

The Democrats have a history of throwing the base to the wolves in pursuit of the mythical "centerist" vote; look for a moderation of the rhetoric coming from both candidates in the coming weeks, especially when targeting each other. On policy, like it or not, there is little that distinguishes one candidate from another. They are both rather wary of Iran, both want us out of Iraq (Ron Paul has staked out the "withdraw now!" territory), both favor increased government intervention in the economy, they both take similar views with regards to social issues. The difference is who each can pull to the polls to vote FOR them. (I cant state any particularly strong argument for voting AGAINST John McCain -- for the first time in a long time, the Republicans have nominated a candidate NOT beholden to the batshit-crazy wing of the party). Regardless, whoever wins the nomination has a very strong chance of winning the White House (sorry, John McCain -- your year was 2004).

Last note: the Democrats have shot themselves in the foot before -- there is no reason why they cant pull it off again this year. I mean, how the hell did 2004 become about gay marriage and not the war!?! John Kerry?!?

PS: I would have voted for Teddy Roosevelt in 1912

Pony Up

Sat, 23 Feb 2008 01:05:34 GMT

What are the odds of a Serbian invasion of Kosovo?

Another Glorious Victory for the Foreign Policy of George W. Bush

Wed, 20 Feb 2008 05:07:45 GMT

Cuba's ailing leader Fidel Castro has announced he will not accept another term as president, ending the communist revolutionary's 49 years in power. </blockqoute>

Ahh, when dictators retire.

I could'nt resist

Mon, 28 Jan 2008 02:28:55 GMT

You are 66% Swampy. Now go get a drink

Not bad. You've been around the block once or twice. A couple more years swamp crawling, binge drinking and you've got it.

How Swampy Are You?
Quizzes for MySpace

The malling of america

Mon, 03 Dec 2007 00:07:38 GMT

Why does a mall need more than one food court?!? I completely missed meeting someone for lunch -- who i havent seen in a while -- because she went to the *second floor* food court while I was waiting in the *first floor* food court.

Apart from that, it was a good trip to DC. I cut my hair (to shoulder length).

Stupid

Wed, 21 Nov 2007 07:41:57 GMT

Problem: OH MY GOD ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS DRIVE *collapse* !!!!!!!!
Solution: You cant drive in the United States with a Salvadorean drivers license? Maybe you should change this, hmmm?

schaudenfreude

Sat, 20 Oct 2007 03:06:23 GMT

I dont think she'll understand that I dont feel it.

Amused by poor grammar

Fri, 28 Sep 2007 06:23:58 GMT

One of the most amusing things about Wikipedia is the tone of some of the articles -- like book reports written by third graders.

Edited for grammer. Har.

New car

Wed, 26 Sep 2007 01:15:25 GMT

Honda Fit, if anyone is interested. Black! Hehehehehe...

Something Interesting

Tue, 25 Sep 2007 02:26:25 GMT

Computer enthusiasts in the developed world will soon be able to get their hands on the so-called "$100 laptop".

The organisation behind the project has launched the "give one, get one" scheme that will allow US residents to purchase two laptops for $399 (£198).

One laptop will be sent to the buyer whilst a child in the developing world will receive the second machine

The G1G1 scheme, as it is known, will offer the laptops for just two weeks, starting on the 12 November.

Also more at One Laptop per Child